Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51161 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 11572 of 2025 Applicant :- Smt. Anupam Lata Tomar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Devi Dayal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri D.D. Kushwaha, learned counsel for the applicants and Sri Indrajeet Singh Yadav, learned A.G.A. 2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the proceeding of Complaint case No. 23009 of 2023 (Satyendra Kumar Singhal Vs. Smt. Anupam Lata Tomar), Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Agra, as well as Summoning order dated 02.02.2024 passed by Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.4, Agra, pending in the Additional Court No.3, Agra. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint stood filed by O.P. No.2 on 01.08.2023 against the applicant with an allegation that with regard to some personal work, financial assistance was tendered by O.P. No.2 to the applicant and thereafter a cheque dated 12.04.2023 was drawn by the applicant bearing number "027576" of an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, which was presented in the Bank, which came to be dishonoured on 31.05.2023. A demand notice is stated to have been issued on 27.06.2023 and as per the recital contained in para-7, the same was received by the applicant on 28.06.2023 and the complaint stood preferred on 01.08.2023. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the cheque of Rs.2,00,000/- was deposited as a security to the O.P. No.2 with relation to certain investments which are in common parlance known as 'BC'. He submits that the cheques were of the year 2017, but they have been misused in the year 2023. He further while inviting attention towards paragraph no.20 has sought to argue that he is not the resident of the place, which has been marked as an address after the name of the accused and the demand notice was not received by him. He submits that happens to be certain documents available on record, which is Annexure-4, which shows that total payment has been made and nothing is due. 4. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand disputes the contention raised by the learned counsel for the applicant, as according to him, whatever arguments are being raised, they are matter of defence. 5. Having heard the arguments so advanced across the Bar, the sole question, which arises for determination is the extent of judicial intervention in the present proceeding. Apparently, the allegations in the complaint depicts that a cheque stood drawn of an amount of Rs.2,00,000/-, which was dishonoured on 31.05.2023, demand notice was issued on 27.06.2023 and as per the recital contained in paragrap-7, it was received on 28.06.2023 and the complaint stood preferred on 01.08.2023. Thus, the complaint has been filed within the prescribed period. Now a question arises as to whether on the fact of the fact as emerging from the record, a conclusive finding can be recorded that the cheque was tendered as a security. Interestingly, there is nothing on record to suggest that the cheque was submitted as a security before O.P. No.2. The question as to whether the cheque is a security or not cannot be gone into at this stage in the present proceeding in absence of any convincing document on record. Moreover, it is a matter of trial as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Womb Laboratories Vs. Vijay Ahuja (2022) 18 SCC 671 and followed in the judgment of Sunil Todi Vs. State of Gujarat, (2022) 16 SCC 762. 6. Apart from the same, the issues relatable to the fact that the applicant has made the entire payment and nothing is due and the cheque has been misused, are the matter of defence, which can be seen in trial. As regards the submission made by learned counsel for the applicant while referring to para-20 of the application that the cheque has been sent on wrong address, the same is also a fact, which is to be proved in the trial, as there is nothing on record to substantitate the said fact except bald allegations. 7. Accordingly no case is made out for interference in the proceeding. The application is rejected. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar, J) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad